Suppr超能文献

照料者和父母身份对健康状态描述的时间权衡和标准博弈效用评分的影响。

Impact of caregiver and parenting status on time trade-off and standard gamble utility scores for health state descriptions.

机构信息

Senior Research Scientist, Outcomes Research, Evidera, Bethesda, MD, USA.

出版信息

Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Apr 9;12:48. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-48.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of caregiver status on time trade-off (TTO) and standard gamble (SG) health state utility scores. Respondents were categorized as caregivers if they reported that either children or adults depended on them for care.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of data from three studies in which general population samples rated health state descriptions. Study 1: UK; four osteoarthritis health states. Study 2: UK; three adult ADHD health states. Study 3: US; 16 schizophrenia health states. All three studies included time trade-off assessment. Study 1 also included standard gamble. Descriptive statistics were calculated to examine willingness to trade in TTO or gamble in SG. Utilities for caregivers and non-caregivers were compared using t-tests and ANCOVA models.

RESULTS

There were 364 respondents including 106 caregivers (n = 30, 47, and 29 in Studies 1, 2, and 3) and 258 non-caregivers. Most caregivers were parents of dependent children (78.3%). Compared to non-caregivers, caregivers had more responses at the ceiling (i.e., utility = 0.95), indicating less willingness to trade time or gamble. All utilities were higher for caregivers than non-caregivers (mean utility difference between groups: 0.07 to 0.16 in Study 1 TTO; 0.03 to 0.17 in Study 1 SG; 0.06 to 0.10 in Study 2 TTO; 0.11 to 0.22 in Study 3 TTO). These differences were statistically significant for at least two health states in each study (p < 0.05). Results of sensitivity analyses with two caregiver subgroups (parents of dependent children and parents of any child regardless of whether the child was still dependent) followed the same pattern as results of the primary analysis. The parent subgroups were generally less willing to trade time or gamble (i.e., resulting in higher utility scores) than comparison groups of non-parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Results indicate that caregiver status, including being a parent, influences responses in time trade-off health state valuation. Caregivers (i.e., predominantly parents) were less willing than non-caregivers to trade time, resulting in higher utility scores. This pattern was consistent across multiple health states in three studies. Standard gamble results followed similar patterns, but with less consistent differences between groups. It may be useful to consider parenting/caregiving status when collecting, interpreting, or using utility data because this demographic variable could influence results.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在探讨照料者身份对时间权衡(TTO)和标准博弈(SG)健康状态效用评分的影响。如果报告称儿童或成人依赖他们照顾,那么受访者就被归类为照料者。

方法

本研究是对三项研究数据的二次分析,这些研究中,一般人群样本对健康状况描述进行了评分。研究 1:英国;四种骨关节炎健康状况。研究 2:英国;三种成人注意缺陷多动障碍健康状况。研究 3:美国;16 种精神分裂症健康状况。这三项研究都包括时间权衡评估。研究 1 还包括标准博弈。使用 t 检验和协方差分析模型计算 TTO 中交换意愿或 SG 中博弈的效用。

结果

共有 364 名受访者,包括 106 名照料者(研究 1、2 和 3 中 n = 30、47 和 29)和 258 名非照料者。大多数照料者是依赖子女的父母(78.3%)。与非照料者相比,照料者的评分更接近上限(即效用=0.95),表明他们不太愿意交换时间或博弈。所有的效用评分都高于非照料者(组间平均效用差异:研究 1 TTO 中为 0.07 至 0.16;研究 1 SG 中为 0.03 至 0.17;研究 2 TTO 中为 0.06 至 0.10;研究 3 TTO 中为 0.11 至 0.22)。在每个研究中,至少有两个健康状况的差异具有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。用两个照料者亚组(依赖子女的父母和无论子女是否仍依赖都照顾子女的父母)进行敏感性分析的结果与主要分析结果一致。父母亚组通常比非父母组更不愿意交换时间或博弈(即导致更高的效用评分)。

结论

结果表明,照料者身份(包括父母身份)会影响时间权衡健康状况估值的反应。照料者(即主要是父母)比非照料者更不愿意交换时间,从而导致更高的效用评分。这一模式在三项研究的多个健康状况中是一致的。标准博弈的结果也遵循类似的模式,但组间差异不那么一致。在收集、解释或使用效用数据时,考虑到育儿/照料者身份可能会很有用,因为这一人口统计学变量可能会影响结果。

相似文献

10
Sagittal craniosynostosis: a utility outcomes study.矢状缝早闭:一项效用结果研究。
J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2017 Aug;20(2):113-118. doi: 10.3171/2017.2.PEDS16567. Epub 2017 May 19.

引用本文的文献

3
What Makes the Time Tradeoff Tick? A Sociopsychological Explanation.时间权衡的关键是什么?一种社会心理学解释。
Med Decis Making. 2024 Nov;44(8):974-985. doi: 10.1177/0272989X241286477. Epub 2024 Oct 15.
6
EQ-5D-Y Value Set for Germany.德国 EQ-5D-Y 量表值。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2022 Dec;40(Suppl 2):217-229. doi: 10.1007/s40273-022-01143-9. Epub 2022 May 23.
8
What's the Cost? Measuring the Economic Impact of Pediatric Sepsis.成本是多少?衡量小儿脓毒症的经济影响。
Front Pediatr. 2021 Nov 15;9:761994. doi: 10.3389/fped.2021.761994. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

2
Health utility estimation.健康效用值评估。
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2002 Apr;2(2):99-108. doi: 10.1586/14737167.2.2.99.
3
Incorporating extrinsic goals into decision and cost-effectiveness analyses.将外在目标纳入决策和成本效益分析。
Med Decis Making. 2009 Sep-Oct;29(5):580-9. doi: 10.1177/0272989X09333121. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
5
Valuing health States for use in cost-effectiveness analysis.评估用于成本效益分析的健康状态。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):769-79. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00007.
8
Extrinsic goals and time tradeoff.外在目标与时间权衡。
Med Decis Making. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(4):406-13. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07302127. Epub 2007 Jun 21.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验